William Rubano has added another fine addition to our growing collection of CC’s favorite car, the 1972 and up Torino, including the Gran Torino, Grander Torino, Super Torino, Mega Torino, Ultra Torino, and the ultimate version, the Giga Torino. This is an early example of that rapidly metastasizing family, a mere plain 1973 Torino, as if there could be such a thing in the heart of the Great Brougham Epoch.

It’s battering ram is ready to take on all comers. No wonder all the other cars in the parking lot are staying well clear of it. Presumably, it has the economy delete option 201 hp 429 V8, which offered the possibility of breaking into double-digit mpgs. The standard 460 V8, although rated at only one more hp (202), certainly couldn’t.

OK; just kidding; but seriously, why did the 460, with an additional 31 cubes only make one more horsepower than the 429? Could someone explain that please? Never mind; I know, it’s all about the torque. Horsepower is irrelevant, at least in the seventies.

With his Cohort posting, Mr. Rubano makes this observation: Unlike other regularly ignored cars of the 60’s and 70’s, big malaise era Fords have not yet been embraced by hipsters, punks, donkers, or rockabilly devotees.

I had this 1973 car in Tan – We got it in December 1976 (I had just turned 17 years old). The tranny blew, then the engine blew, then the tranny started to go again. We finally gave up on it in December 1979. For as much as it was a POS…I’d LOVE to get my hands on another one.

The ’71s were just slightly updated ’70s and those cars had unibody construction and were represented in earlier years by such nameplates as Fairlane and Falcon.

The ’72 model year was the first one of the traditional body on frame construction for the Torino (plus Ranchero and Montego). This basic car later was sold as the LTDII, the Cougar and the Thunderbird.

I have a ’72 Ranchero; it has a 351 and is very comfortable in a straight line down I-25.

I liked the 72’s best for their front ends. I love how the body surrounds the headlight clusters, and the grill, keeping them separate. I love the rear taillights on these however as they appear to be like the 72’s.

This one looks to be in great shape, and very much stock, though the paint may not be factory original due to how shiny it still is on the sides. It does look like it’s not seen much wax of late as the hood is quite dull.

I’ve always thought that car appreciation _has_ to be sincere–even if it starts out as ironic, by the time you’ve commited to buying an old junker and started fixing it up, you’ve either devoted enough time that you would sincerely enjoy the experience, or you’d have sunk so much time and money into the thing that it would be impractical to give it up 🙂

To answer the original question, they are indeed toxic. If you had to pick a car that embodies everything that was wrong with domestic cars in the ’70s, for my money this platform is it. Gutless wallowing barges that sucked fuel like a 707, were cramped and poorly built, and awful to drive. My Dad had a ’73 as a company car for a couple of years and even today remembers it as the worst car he ever had. I respect anyone who has kept a car this old in decent shape, but I still shudder when I see one of these junkers. We wouldn’t even have them at Rent A Wreck 30 years ago.
Sorry for the rant, but I hate these things!

Agree, with all points above. Plus they looked somewhat like bloated full-sized cars. Even though they were mid-sizers. I found Colonnades look relatively svelte compared to these and the current Mercury Cougars. The generic Ford hub caps on this example shown, were also available on the lowly Maverick. It is nice to see one in a shade besides metallic brown. A survivor from Ford’s dark times for sure. They were hugely popular because the domestic makers still had lots of brand loyalty then. I can see why the Mustang II would look pretty good at the time, when it shared the showroom with the Pinto, Maverick and Gran Torino. This is one reason why the Fairmont was such a refreshing breakthrough.

Funny thing, as it happens the only time I drove one of these was a Rent A Wreck 72 or 73 Montego sedan rented by a friend in Oregon for a backpacking trip four of us took in Washington state in 80. Talk about the wrong car for the sweet mountain roads of northern Washington. But then pretty much anything affordable at the time with room for four adults and luggage would have been the wrong car for those roads.

This car is a great example of the 70s incompetence at Ford that almost led them into bankruptcy in the early 80s.

Gad, what an awful front end. I still remember the first time I saw one of these after they came out. I had liked the front of the 72 Gran Torino (not so much tne regular version) but the 73 was an almost epic slam into ugliness (like the 55 Studebaker after the 53-54 – sorry, MikePDX) But then I saw one of these, and wondered just what was this all about. I finally decided that Ford was aggressively styling its lower-tier cars to aid in up-selling at the dealerships. It seemed to have worked, as these were hardly ever seen.

I will echo the general lack of love for these. One of the greatest bullets my mother ever dodged was when an unscrupulous Ford salesman (whose name I still remember) sold the brown 74 Gran Torino sedan that Mom had put a deposit down on before closing-time the night before when there had not been time to write up the paperwork. The 74 Luxury LeMans she bought was no great paragon of quality or efficiency, but it was a damn sight better than one of these.

Am I the only one who watched the Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino while wondering “My God, Kowalski, what kind of great 60s Ford did you trade off to buy this awful pig?” The poor Hmong kid next door had to wonder why they coundn’t have moved in next-door to a GM or Chrysler retiree instead.

I actually own a car very close to Kowalski’s, and it isn’t an awful pig. It’s comfortable has lots of power, was very well built, and surprisingly is fun and competent on the road (for something of this vintage). On top of that it turns a ton of heads, and gets tons of thumbs up. It has been in the family since new (owned by my father). He also owned (and my brother has it now) a Colonnade Chevelle. Gee the way you make it sound the Chevelle should be the choice hands down. Yet, it seems after everyone who drives the two prefers the Torino. And guess what, the Torino actually has slightly more rear seat space (front is comparable), and the truck is significantly larger. Both have terrible space efficiency. Both had similar gas mileage, (although the Ford is stronger performance wise by a fair amount), and both have been reliable and well built cars.

You make some fair points. I can attest that when you find a car from the 70s with a HD or handling suspension option, the results can be dramatic. Mom’s 74 Luxury LeMans and a 77 New Yorker that I later owned were both equipped, and were mighty fearsome handling cars in their weight classes.

I will also agree that when new, these Fords seemed to use higher quality interior trim and exuded the feel of a slightly smaller LTD. In their day, these struck me as a better finished package than either the Colonnades or the Mopar B bodies. If a guy liked Fords in the 70s, he would like one of these. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t.

Also, the entire “mid-sized” lineup from the Big 3 suffered badly from bloat. The trim, taut size of the 60s was gone, and these occupied some odd place that seemed to be 9/10 the size of a 60s Galaxie or Impala outside, but offering only 60-70% of their interior space, at least subjectively. Where the Ford stood out was in the way it aged – extremely badly compared with the others, which were not that great either.

True confession: after all the bad things I have said about these, I will confess to this strange urge – I kind of want this car. I cannot begin to explain, even to myself.

I will agree with you, the Torino’s did age badly. They got even bigger, heavier and less attractive in a short period. Then there was the LTD II…. My dad always said had it been ’73 when car shopping, he might not have bought a Torino due to the dramatic styling change.

I still think a ’72 fastback is a pretty sharp car, and I have no plans to get rid of mine.

Having owned both the top of the line Colonnade, a 1973 Buick Century Luxus and a sparsely trimmed 1974 Gran Torino I agree that the Ford used much better interior materials. As far as the rust thing goes in the mid 80’s when I owned them the Buick was much rustier than the Ford and this is in the PNW where salt is not used on the roads. As far as I could tell they had both been local cars but do not know for sure.

I think we can agree that the Torino made a suitable alternate to the Colonnades in salt free climates, if someone’s preference was a Ford product. In Central Canada you’d still see high mileage Colonnades well into the mid 80s in decent shape. Torinos were rare after 1979-1980. Fords from 1969 through to about 1977 were severe rusters here. Regardless of the model. Torinos were as bad as the Maverick, Pinto or LTD. I believe there were lawsuits against Ford of Canada at the time specifically related to premature structural rust. It made network news here. There was a ’74 Torino, ’72 LTD and a ’76 T-Bird in our family, and they all had terminal rust… everywhere, after 5-6 years. You could press holes through body panels if you chose to. A reputation for terminal rust made the Torino a reckless choice here after 1975-1976. And I would imagine that was the case for anyone who owned one where road salt was used.

I did think that the car in Gran Torino should have been something more iconic, like a primo 67-70 Mustang or a muscle version 70-71 Torino. However, the 72 is by far the best looking of that generation and with the 429 still has a trace of real performance. It’s a legitimate classic, in my opinion. But yeah, the Hmong kid would have been better off if Kowalski worked at GM or Chrysler!

The brochure I found online (admittedly for ’73’s Ranchero variant) listed the 400 and the 429, but no 460. Was said 460 really offered in this car (or even in the Galaxie)? I always thought of it as Lincoln-Thunderbird-Truck territory…but memory is hazy after 40 years.

Yes, this is correct, there was no 460 for civilian cars. The police got the “Police Interceptor” 460 rated at 269 hp (SAE net). If they would have offered this in the civilian version, they would have been one of the quickest cars in 1973. Even so, the 351CJ in a Gran Torino Sport C&D tested ran 16.0 in the 1/4, which for ’73 was on par with many big block offerings GM and Mopar. It was also faster than a ’70 Torino with a high compression 351-4V. The 351CJ offered between ’72-’74 was Ford’s last real attempt at a performance engine (other than the Police only engines).

Plus for 1973, the battering ram front bumper combined with the more elegant rear bumper, really compromised the looks. Almost like a snowplow. It did look more modern and suitably Broughamy than the Chrysler mid-sizers, but I found the GMs, trumped it badly in this regard.
Even with mag wheels and a jacked rearend, it still looked overweight unfortunately.

I’ll go farther on the looks – this fat car with those dainty little wheels/wheelcovers reminds me of the fat hippos with the dainty little ballet slippers I recall from the old Disney movie Fantasia. Put this thing into some kind of emergency maneuver on the road, and watch the hippo dance.

I can say with authority that there is NOTHING worthy of anyone’s interest in a ’72 – ’76 Torino, with the exception of perhaps the mildly unique bass-mouth grill on the ’72 Gran Torino. My folks bought a former rental ’72 Gran Torino HT in ’73 or so, and it was a horrible vehicle – even for the 70’s. Uncomfortable bench seat, high beltline and huge rear pillars made it feel like you were driving a submarine. Smog controls choked the little 302. I think I actually preferred their old ’69 Galaxie 500, and I didn’t like it, either. In ’74, I was working at a Ford dealer for a few weeks, actually trying to sell cars. I was surprised to learn you could actually order the 460 in a Torino. Had my old wood shop teacher from Jr. H.S. come in, and he wanted to order a full-boat Gran Torino wagon, with the 460.

12 mpg with a 302? No thanks, I don’t need a gutless motor with the thirst of a high performance one.

For comparison, my ’73 Galaxie with a bigger (1.33 venturi/ 424 CFM) autolite carb from a ’69 390 and a Edelbrock performer cam plus dual exhaust got an honest 16 mpg at a steady 60 out of a 400M. It would (ahem) haul a fully loaded U-Haul trailer at 90 mph with no problem…

Yes, and it was bone stock. My parents bought the car new about two weeks before the first oil crisis hit. It was a gutless wonder and my father always drove it like he hated it. He sold it in 1982 with 123,000 miles and it ran for a long time after that. Of course, the rust blended in well with the brown paint.

The awful gas mileage wasn’t just on Fords. My mom’s 74 Luxury LeMans with a 2 bbl 350 could never do better than 16 on the highway, and was only good for 12-13 mpg around town. It was a bit of a performance slug as well. Gas mileage was just pathetic on just about everything from the US in those years, as they were early in the learning curve on taming emissions.

We also had a 1974 Luxury LeMans (a green coupe with off-white vinyl top) that got horrible mileage – that is, no better than my ’66 Bonneville convertible could achieve. At least it had Radial Tuned Suspension, a definite improvement versus putting radials on an older car (the Bonneville).

The advent of the catalytic converter, which for most cars was during the 1975 model year, did lead to cars that ran somewhat better – although some awful slugs remained on the market for years (such as our ’77 New Yorker Brougham four-door with its strangled 440).

I have had two 76-77 Chevy Malibu Classic sedans both with 2bbl 305s, both could crack 20mpg at interstate speeds, and get 12-15 in town.

My current 77 has seen a high of 24, and a low of 8 on the highway. turn the A/C on though and forget breaking 20, or breaking 15, that big Harrison unit takes a 3-4mpg penalty for making ‘paid-for’ cold air.

I think dropping the rear axle ratios in ’75-’76 helped. Typical mid-size Colonnade axle ratios in ’73-’74 were mostly 2.73 with some 3.08 and POSSIBLY a 2.56 thrown in…although I’ve never seen a 2.56 rear in a pre ’76 car.

By 1976, most of these cars had a higher 2.41 (and I think many had 2.56 but I can’t recall) axle ratio….slowing acceleration but helping mileage.

Much of this describes the late-70s (or possibly 1980) Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon my grandparents once owned. I don’t remember if it had the 260 or the 305 (my impression is that it had the latter, but I could be wrong), but it was quite thirsty and its acceleration was best described as leisurely. Kickdown (or manually selecting 2, which I did once or twice as an experiment) produced a lot of commotion accompanied by little actually change in the rate of forward progress.

Looking at the catalog, I see that the 260 had a 2.56 axle ratio and the 305 offered a choice of 2.73 or 2.29 (!), which might have had something to do with the lack of verve. The Cutlass wasn’t dreadfully heavy (not that you would know from its road manners) and the 305 had 155-160 hp, which you would think would produce at least acceptable passing response.

Most of the ’78 & newer cars had the 2.29 ratio rear, judging by the many build sheets I’ve obtained over the years. Around 1980 or so, a few Cutlasses (& possibly others) had a crazy 2.14 ratio rear. Not sure what engine was in front of those cars.

in Wisconsin these normally developed rust holes in the doors within 5 years…amazing when you figure most cars now are sold with 6 year payment plans. that said, these looked pretty good with mags and a slight rake. the performance engine wasn’t the big block, it was the 351.

I remember a trip to Toronto in the summer of ’79, and none of these had any outside mirrors left on them. The rust had migrated so far up the door skin that they evidently had dropped off under their own weight!

Funny, we have plenty of hipsters here in Boston, but none of them seem to have vintage cars. There’s a 1963(?) Buick LeSabre, and I recently spotted a young couple in a charming robin’s egg blue Falcon Futura with fender skirts. The rest are in older Civics or Scions, or whatever mom/dad outgrew. I suppose parking is too expensive here for kids to indulge in fun cars.

Well, I’m in in Burlington, VT and have yet to witness the hipsters-driving-old-cars phenomenon in person so I’d say it must be something that only happens in non-road salt areas, since we have nothing like big city parking costs.

I think that’s an essential part of it. For a proper hipster-mobile, you really need a relatively intact survivor. A restored or carefully preserved car (a) doesn’t really project the right aura of self-conscious nonchalance and (b) is probably too expensive.

Also, I would like to think, idealist that I am, that even the most obnoxious hipster is going to be a little touchy about the prospect of beating up a really nice old car with shiny paint and reasonably complete trim. Part of the point of the hipster-mobile is that you have a “unique” car that’s still serviceable, but not so nice that you feel any great aversion to dumping your new cinderblock collection in the trunk, smoking while driving, or accidentally backing into one of those low-standing concrete poles. Otherwise, people might think you cared, and caring is patently un-hip.

First of all, that car is in incredible shape and I respect the owner for keeping it that way. Any Torino is a rare sight these days, they have long been eclipsed in popularity by the Mustang and its Montego stablemate is an even smaller needle in the haystack.

While I think its the least attractive of the big 3 mid-sizers in 1973; the new GMs pretty much had that locked up, but its far from an ugly car and certainly better looking than any mid-sizer sold in the last 25 years. The base 302 was a waste but step up to the 351 and it performed well and easy performance upgrades were waiting at the Ford dealer parts counter. My Mom had a 72 Montego in that exact color combination and it was nice car.

I think most people would fully agree that this owner should be given full compliments for maintain this car in such great shape. It is a fun artifact from the 70s for sure. I think people have more of an issue with Ford and the fact this was the wrong car for the times it was introduced. They sold them well into the late 70s, well after the Oil Crisis of ’73. Between poor space utilization, poor mileage, poor build quality and their varied reliability… Models like these helped lead to the opening of the import floodgates. They were terrible rusters and wasteful for their size. They have more in common with a mid 60s Fairlane, than a mid 80s Taurus. They sold over 400,000 of these in 1974, that’s a lot of cars with compact sized interiors, getting 12 miles per gallon. Those buyers probably deserved better moneys worth than this model.

As wasteful as it was, Ford was still selling the Torino based LTD II and Thunderbird until a second oil crisis in 1979, 6 years after the first oil crisis!
If Ford had been building mid-sized cars in the 1970s closer to say, the Mercedes-Benz W114, I think we’d be enjoying a lot more 1970s mid-sized Fords on the road today. Not the occasional, very rare Gran Torino sighting.
I can’t remember the last time I saw an LTD II. Or a ’77-’79 T-Bird, for that matter. Lots of iron oxide came out of those models.

Sorry, one other quick point. If these were niche luxury vehicles, their wallowy wastefulness could be forgiven perhaps for sure… but these were meant to be high volume bread and butter models. Selling over 300,000 to 400,000 per year. The Camry or Accords of the 70s they definitely were not.

That’s another fallacy about these cars, the interior space. Sure they weren’t roomy but they were no where near as small as a compact car interior. And from personal experience were pretty near identical to GM’s offerings (for space). Growing up in a family of six with 4 males all over 6 feet tall, trust me, I immediately notice when a car is smaller. These Torino’s had interiors significantly larger than the compacts of the day.

But then we can also assess where the Torino stood in 1975 after it first came out and it’s initial great popularity.
When it was still a daily driver.

The Colonnades were many flawed, but they did a number of things better than the Torino. And just didn’t rust as badly.

A 351 or 429 engine in a mid-sized, daily driven car right after the Oil Crisis?

My lasting memory of many 70s Torinos unfortunately is of prematurely rusted, overly bulky cars with sagging suspensions that looked totally out of place as daily drivers within 2-4 years once the Granada, Fairmont and downsized A-Bodies came out.
It was greatly displaced by these smaller, sensibly sized models.

70s Torinos had very large bodies compared to their interior space.

Understand, that for most cars, premature rusting translates to terminal cancer.
And that would be the case in less than 6 years on a heck of a lot of Torinos like this one.

Bill Mitchell

Posted November 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I more than understand rust, I live in an area that sees salt on the roads 6 months a year. Trust me, I know about rust, and I know how badly these cars rusted, as did all Fords from the early to mid 1970’s, not just the Torinos. The Colonnades were a little bit better than the Fords, but not much. It was pretty uncommon to see a 10 year old Colonnade without some major rust holes, but you got a few more years than a Torino did. Yet, even with all these rust problems, my 41 year example has all original untouched sheetmetal. It has never seen a winter, but has seen all other forms of inclement weather in it’s active 41 year life span (it was a summer daily driver and family car).

I agree with you by 1975 these Torino’s were out of place, but no more so than the Colonnades. You make it sound like the Colonnade are small next to the Torino’s. Unlike so many here that are going solely based on memory, I actually have a Colonnade and Torino readily accessible that I have put thousands of miles on each. There is no significant difference in size or space efficiency (well, at least for the 2-doors, which is what I have experience with).

That said, both the GM’s and Ford midsizers of this era have there plus and minus, but I can say after putting thousands of miles on each platfrom, I prefer the Ford (and I am generally a GM guy). This from someone who drove each in the last month. Most other’s posting are based on ancient memories.

that’s the thing.. people forget that while not terribly spacious compared to today’s cars, they were decent. The Fords were larger than the GM cars in length and and wheelbase for the midsized segment. I know this because sitting in my garage is the GM competitor, in sedan form, and comparing to my friends 72 G Torino the Ford had more legroom in the back seat, but the cokebottle rear cut into the spacious feeling in the back seat, and the crazy hi-lo set of the door handles of the doors on each side kind of gave it a lop-sided effect.

People harp on the size, but forget that this was a time when the coupes and sedans sat on different wheelbases. the 73-77 GM A-body (midsized) had a 112″ wb for the coupes and 116″ for the sedans, and every bit of that 4″ stretch was in the rear seat leg room. Ford was no different, I don’t think Mopar was different either.

Junqueboi

Posted November 12, 2013 at 4:53 AM

I find it funny that people complain about space utilization on some of these older cars as if this were a Consumer Reports website.

I’m in the minority camp here that thinks y’all are coming down a little hard on this car.

There are some general strikes against it……

From my experience, and the CC website, Ford had a general problem with rust in roughly the ’65-’75 era. The Torino was another Ford.

Ford’s handling of 5 mph bumpers was the most ham fisted of the American companies. The Torino was another Ford.

The necessity of creating a rather homely “base” front end is questionable. If it did drive some upgrade sales, putting out a Ford with AMC looks was not a brilliant move for the long term. They should have realized that they’d get called on this on the CC website!

Space efficiency is a minivan. It’s all down hill from there, and the Torino was fairly typical for its times.

It guzzled gas – as did any domestic ’73 V8.

On the plus……

The design was a fresh mid-size Ford in its second season.

The look was distinct – you could tell a Ford from a Chevy from a Plymouth from an AMC. If you thought GM was much better in these years, you bought a GM. Aren’t look alike cars the modern complaint?

The side view of this car is a rather clean design with just enough sculpting to tell you what it is on one glance.

It’s an honest-to-God hardtop with roll down rear windows, on a base model no less!

Ford sold something just short of a half million Torino’s in ’72 and ’73. Sales dropped to just under 430k in ’74. A drop of about 15% in a terrible year. The full-size Ford dropped about 45% in ’74 compared to ’73. The ’74 Chevelle series – all trims, sold only about 361k. The rather simple Torino line even put a little dent into the advantage Chevy had with it’s popular Monte Carlo.

By any standard at Ford, The launch of this generation Torino was a success.

All numbers are from the Krause Standard Catalog of American Cars.

Throw a “Gran” front on this car and you’d have a rather handsome package as base ’73 mid-size cars go.

This is a nicely preserved example of a rare find these days. The base Torino for 1972-1974 used unique front end treatments. None of them were attractive in my opinion, but it was mostly for fleet sales. This car isn’t the best looker Ford made, but a ’73 Gran Torino Sport Fastback was not half bad especially compared to most 1973’s.

I agree that the people of this site are generally very hard on these Torino’s. I’d hate for that owner to read half these comments. Yes, they had their faults. They were terrible for rusting, large and not space efficient, and were strangled with smogger engines. But guess what? So were the offerings from GM and Chrysler. The Colonnades are so revered by so many here were also terrible rusters, had terrible space efficiency and had underpowered smogger engines (don’t get me wrong, I like the Colonnades too).

They also have a terrible reputation for having terrible suspensions. And they did – sort of. The actual design of the suspension wasn’t new, it was a re-hash of Ford’s fullsize design that dated to 1965. Almost all of the components will interchange on the front suspension. This same suspension was also used in NASCAR of the time, even on the Uni-body Torinos (with a Galaxie frame clip). The issue was that Ford offered WAY too soft of spring and shocks in the base suspensions, trying to offer that famous smooth Ford ride. No different than some of GM’s terrible suspensions in the early 60’s the fullsize x-frame Chevs. That said, order these cars with the heavy-duty or competition suspension, and they are actually pretty competent road cars. Read the reviews and comparisons from the era, and the only suspension complainants comes from the base suspensions. In fact, Road Test magazine praised the Heavy Duty (Cross Country) suspension in the 1972 Montego – their car of the year.

I was talking about the front suspension – I should have specified more clearly. Yes the rear was a new design, shared with the Lincoln Mark IV and T-bird. I am well versed in Ford suspension, I have recently rebuilt several suspensions from scratch.

I remember the truant officer at my high school driving a bronze Torino with a tan vinyl top. I thought it was truly hideous (He was a good match) back then, now, except for the awful color scheme, it wasn’t that bad, especially for a Ford of that era. IMHO Ford was about 4 years into a long long era of ugly cars and trucks that only recently have they exited. I actually like a lot of Ford products now. I never, ever thought I could be saying/admitting that.

Well, my parents had a ’76 Elite with a 460 that was a wallowing pig.
Whoever ordered it didn’t check off the handling package with the rear sway bar,
I don’t know how much it would have helped, but it couldn’t have hurt.
On the plus side, the 460 was built to Canadian emissions levels, with straight dual exhaust with no Cats or resonators. It could burn rubber, for sure.
Re the earlier models-In my neck of the woods the 351, in all it’s various incarnations, was the most common, with a sprinkling of 400s and 302s on either end of the spectrum. 429s were seldom seen.

Of course anyone that preserves a cool 70s car in this great of shape for so long, should be commended and complimented. It’s a curiosity for most people now… So, of course it will touch people on an emotional level that way. Same as a Cordoba would.

But as post OPEC high volume daily-driven, efficient mid-sized cars… they left lots to be desired. Of course the Colonnades weren’t very practical either, but they did many things better than the Torino and didn’t rust nearly as badly.

I think the fact so many people were prepared to leave the Torino in droves once more efficient luxury compacts like the Granada/Monarch and Volare/Aspen came out, said a lot. Torino sales dropped 200,000 in 1975 and never recovered.
Why?
Because they were heavier than they needed to be, hard on gas, had a poor reputation for rust and durability, were floaty, and were not the most efficient design.
Given how big they were on the outside, they should have offered more room than they did on the inside.

We aren’t critiquing the value of the Torino as a collectable or people’s taste in them.
But as a mid-size car that was success up until the first Oil Crisis and the first wave of people downsizing from the LTD. After 1974, sales really dropped when people saw they could find more efficient cars elsewhere. They saw them for what they were…
not the most efficient design, and bad rusters.
A rust reputation alone, is terminal to a car’s legacy.

We can look at well preserved malaise era cars like the Torino on the web or at car shows, and perhaps forget. Forget just how many were sold, and how many were scrap by 1979. In Central Canada, I can remember around 1978 through 1981 seeing so many Torinos in any given neighbourhood, looking like the one pictured below. With terminal rust, or sagging suspension. Missing trim bits. Running very rough. Perhaps Ford should have sold them with a disclaimer when selling them in regions that used road salt or had pot-holed roads due to frost heaving, highly recommending aftermarket rustproofing and upgraded suspensions. As the factory quality control was not sufficient beyond 5 years in this region at least.

In addition to the above stated reasons, I believe you need to look at the hands of where these cars (especially the coupes) landed in the 80’s and it would explain the lack of them on the ground now. In Tennessee during the 80’s, almost every 70’s vintage Torino coupe was in the possession of a single male from his teens to his mid 20’s. In almost every instance , the motor was tweaked, sporting dual exhaust, and a set off aftermarket wheels(usually with Cragar SS’s). They made for a cheap set of hot wheels and were usually driven in to the ground by the early to mid 90s.

Here is my original condition ’72 Ranchero 500 (base model). No rust. Looks like I’ve got the same wheel covers as the blue and white coupe.

I am the 2nd owner. I bought the car in 1997 from the back row of a used car lot on South Broadway in Englewood (Denver). It was sold to the dealer by the original owner’s estate; he had a camper shell on the car and seemed to have used the car sparingly for camping/fishing service. It was an Adams County, Colorado ranch based car and since then it has been a garaged Wyoming car. So – no rust.

As opposed to the then contemporary El Camino, I believe the bed is more useful and bigger. I think the four tie down pockets/bars were a very thoughtful and still highly functional design.

I’m keeping this car and I’m keeping it dry (I never have used it in winter in my 16+ years of ownership).

Oh yeh , the disco duck car. Back during the 70s I had a delivery job , and I drove a Torino stationwagon around , about the same time that song came out, I Love The Night Life. The song was playing on that car radio.